Changes for page Agile and Data

Summary

• Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -13,11 +13,11 @@
13	13
14	14	**2. Burndown Chart**
15	15
16		-**![[burndown-chart_white.svg|burndown-chart_white.svg]]**
	16	+**![[burndown-chart_white_v2.svg|burndown-chart_white_v2.svg]]**
17	17
18	18	* x-axis: same as in velocity-time chart
19	19	* y-axis: Points remaining = sum of points from unfinished stories
20		-* The first point starts at the very beginning of the project and is therefore at x = 0, just above the y-axis. It is the sum of the effort estimates of all stories. The seconds data point is generated after the first story implementation iteration.
	20	+* The first point starts at the very beginning of the project and is therefore at x = 0, just above the y-axis. It is the sum of the effort estimates of all stories. The second data point is generated after the first story implementation iteration.
21	21	* The linear approximation function of the data points has a negative slope. The deck of stories is completed over time, so the graph "burns down" over time, hence the name.
22	22
23	23	### Benefits
...	...	@@ -37,10 +37,11 @@
37	37
38	38	### How to Handle Delays?
39	39
40		-If the Agile data produced indicates that there will be a delay, there are a number of ways to deal with the problem:
	40	+**Scope vs Schedule**: In many classic projects, the scope and the schedule are fixed. However, since the effort and requirements of software projects are almost impossible to accurately determine, it is unreasonable for management to demand the same fixation of scope and schedule. Therefore, either the scope must be flexible and the schedule fixed, or vice versa. This relationship explains the strategies for dealing with the problem when the generated agile data indicates that there will be a delay:
41	41
42		-* **Schedule Adaption**: It's sometimes possible to postpone the deadline, although this is often not an acceptable option for management.
43		-* **Personnel Increase**: Will result in a short-term drop in productivity, as the new team members require the attention of the original team members (explanations, answering questions, joint familiarization with the project, etc.), which distracts them from their actual work. After this period, productivity will rise above the original productivity as desired.
44		-* **Scope Adaption**: Stakeholders prioritize features with the highest return of investment (RoI) and remove features with lower RoI from the project scope.
	42	+* **Schedule Adaption**: It's sometimes possible to push back the deadline to give developers more time to implement all the stories, although this is often not an acceptable option for management.
	43	+* **Scope Adaption**: Stakeholders prioritize features with the highest return on investment (ROI) and remove features with lower ROI from the project scope to meet the original deadline.
45	45
46		-Decreasing code quality by omitting testing or refactoring is not an option, as it actually slows development and adds to technical debt.
	45	+**Personnel Increase**: An alternative to the above strategies may be to invest more human resources in the project. Ideally, neither scope nor schedule need be adjusted. Note that this will result in a short-term drop in productivity, as the new team members require the attention of the original team members (explanations, answering questions, joint familiarization with the project, etc.), which distracts them from their actual work. After this period, productivity will rise above the original productivity as desired. **Brook's Law** is an inference from this fact, which states that adding personnel to a late project will delay it even further due to the initial drop in productivity.
	46	+
	47	+**Never Sacrifice Quality**: Decreasing code quality by omitting testing or refactoring, with the intention of saving time, actually slows development and adds to technical debt. This is not an option at all.